Texas School Suspends Student for Answering Call in Class From Dad in Iraq

[FreshJive]

So take a couple days off and play video games. Anytime you can get suspended and not be in any trouble at home you've won.

[GuerillaBlack]

^^Suspensions suck though, because you can't exempt final exams. Better get use to it for college though, but still... Hate taking those things.

Originally Posted by mary

Ummmmm.....generalize much?

Its not even remotely necessary for students to have a cell phone in the classroom to begin with.

Students don't have the same rights and responsibilities as teachers in the classroom.

The mere suggestion is retarded.

Every teacher should have a way to communicate with the "outside"...whether it be a cell phone or land line.

And this is not a generalization either?

I'm telling you from my experiences at school. My business law teacher (who use to be an attorney and worked for a major oil company, can go back at anytime and double her pay, too) agrees with what I am saying, too. She has told us if teachers are allowed to use phones, students should be, too. I'm paraphrasing what she said, but I hope you get the idea.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

My business law teacher (who use to be an attorney and worked for a major oil company, can go back at anytime and double her pay, too) agrees with what I am saying, too. She has told us if teachers are allowed to use phones, students should be, too.

She really should go back and double (probably more like triple) her pay. And I bet she told you that too.

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

She really should go back and double (probably more like triple) her pay. And I bet she told you that too.

Nope. She wants and likes to teach. She is fairly young though, and probably could go back.

[EricaLubarsky]

who cares if one teacher wants to let students have cellphones?

Kids shouldnt have cellphones and the kid didnt get suspended because of preference-- he was suspended because of school policy.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't think the school went too far enough - they should have cut off the child's ear as a message to all the other children not answer their cell phones in school...

And I could give a damn less that it was his lowly-pleblian-of-a-father calling to say he won't be home for Christmas the next 100 years! (why can't these animals learn to live by The Rules???)

Lawlz. Life isn't fair and full of exceptions. Why do we try to pretend otherwise to our youth?

[mary]

And this is not a generalization either?

Of whom?

You can't run a classroom without having classroom policies that are conducive to the learning experience.

It's common sense.





I would also like to add that if they kid actually had permission from a principal, then he shouldn't be suspended.

The principal's an ass for not handling the situation differently.

Secondly, the fact that his father is in Iraq doesn't really weigh heavily in my opinion. Like someone else said, 30 kids, 30 possible exceptions why they need to take a phone call. It just doesn't work. The fact that the conversation is "more likely" to be his last than if his father were say, a garbage man, is just an emotional flag that the mother can waive to justify her actions. I've had several members of my immediate family that served in the last two Iraq/Gulf Wars - one of whom is no longer with me. Yet I still had enough common sense to know it wouldn't be appropriate to take a personal phone call during class. And if I wanted to have that kind of flexibility, then I needed to change my circumstances. I never expected everyone else to revolve around me and my problems.

And nowhere does it say that this is the only possible time they're schedules allowed them to communicate. Only that the kid was down and needed someone to talk to.

I do believe that line forms to the left.

[Jack.Kerr]

I would also like to add that if they kid actually had permission from a principal, then he shouldn't be suspended.

The principal's an ass for not handling the situation differently.

Interesting note. If you watch the little vid clip of the interview with Son and Mother, Mother says that they "believed" they had an "understanding" with an assistant principal at the school; that before her husband left, he let the school know that if he called while his 2 sons were at school, that they should be allowed to take the call during class.

Just think about that for a second.

No specific agreement on the part of the school; no specific agreement about the call in question; no agreement from the teacher in question.

Just the father telling an assistant principal what he wanted, i.e., basically trying to give his son the ability to sit in class with his phone on, waiting for his father (or anyone else) to call. And apparently this is what had happened, and why the school took the actions it did.

I certainly appreciate the sacrifices that a member of the armed forces (and his family) makes, certainly respect service in a combat zone. But for someone to think that they actually have the perogative to unilaterally determine school policy like that bespeaks an extraordinary sense of entitlement. I don't think a school (or any other government system) can be expected to acquiesce to that kind of sense of entitlement.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

Secondly, the fact that his father is in Iraq doesn't really weigh heavily in my opinion. Like someone else said, 30 kids, 30 possible exceptions why they need to take a phone call. It just doesn't work. The fact that the conversation is "more likely" to be his last than if his father were say, a garbage man, is just an emotional flag that the mother can waive to justify her actions. I've had several members of my immediate family that served in the last two Iraq/Gulf Wars - one of whom is no longer with me. Yet I still had enough common sense to know it wouldn't be appropriate to take a personal phone call during class.

That's you. Maybe it's not just some flag for the mother.
And you cannot run a school like this with the "zero tolerance" approach to exceptions. To say that 1 exception would mean 30 exceptions is nonsense. Talk about a meaningless flag to waive around. If that were true, then we wouldn't be using the word "exception" because it would be a blanket applied rule. You can be strict with your policies. But you can't say that just because there are 30 kids, there can be no exceptions. There are always weird and unforeseen situations that arise that deserve an exception.

And nowhere does it say that this is the only possible time they're schedules allowed them to communicate. Only that the kid was down and needed someone to talk to.

I think the kid said in one of the articles that that was the only time the dad could call.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

No specific agreement on the part of the school; no specific agreement about the call in question; no agreement from the teacher in question.

Just the father telling an assistant principal what he wanted, i.e., basically trying to give his son the ability to sit in class with his phone on, waiting for his father (or anyone else) to call. And apparently this is what had happened, and why the school took the actions it did..

Your "apparently" is an assumption. It could very well be that the principle (or whoever) said something like, "yeah, we'll work something out." then never did. The only "apparently" is that apparently, the family thought it would be ok.

[mary]

To say that 1 exception would mean 30 exceptions is nonsense.

Why?

Sorry, my experience says otherwise.

If you can't be consistent with adminstering rules in the classroom, then things will snowball on you quickly.

And in no way is having a father in Iraq a "weird and unforseen" situation.

Its both normal and foreseeable.

[dalmations202]

There has to be more to this story.

I understand both sides... my father is a retired school teacher 32 years - 12 as a superintendent (all after special forces). My sister is in the teaching field 15 years. Mother retired after 20.

I have asked all three, and they say they would not have a problem with excusing a child to go out in the hall and take a call from a parent who is in a combat zone.

What on earth is more important in life to that child -- 15 minutes in class -- or a call from a parent who is defending his country and he might not see again?

I understand there are rules, but good grief. Unless you know what the situation is for the guy in Iraq, then how can any judgment be made like this. Calls are/were not easy to come by since AT&T didn't have towers in Iraq last I knew.

Now if this is a common occurance, and the kid and dad are milking it as he sits at a desk over there doing paperwork in the rear (REMF)-- OK. If this is a situation where Dad came in from the duty though, and called, and this isn't something that happens all the time, then if it were me, I would feel for the school board when I got back. School board, teachers union, PTO, PTA, congressmen, governor, papers etc would all be hearing it.

Now my question is -- is this common thing with them or not? What is "the rest" of the story?

[Flacolaco]

Fine. Then have the Dad call the school, and then the personnel at the school can pull him out of class.

Kids don't need freaking cell phones at all, much less in a damn classroom.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Fine. Then have the Dad call the school, and then the personnel at the school can pull him out of class.

Kids don't need freaking cell phones at all, much less in a damn classroom.

This would probably have been the best option, IMO, for all involved.

You do still have the class interruption though.

[mary]

I have asked all three, and they say they would not have a problem with excusing a child to go out in the hall and take a call from a parent who is in a combat zone.

I'm fine with that too, except that it necessitates allowing the student to have a cell phone in class in the first place.

In the "not-so-old-days", if a parent needed to reach a student, that student would be pulled out of class and go to the office.

Edit: Flaco beat me to it.

[Flacolaco]

Yeah...I mean to me, a parent calling a student on a cell phone in a class room, is the exact same thing as a parent bursting into a class room and walking up to their kid and starting to talk to them while the teacher is doing their thing.

That's the schools time. You sent them there. If you're going to interrupt, go through the proper channel: The school.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by mary

Why?

Sorry, my experience says otherwise.

If you can't be consistent with adminstering rules in the classroom, then things will snowball on you quickly.

And in no way is having a father in Iraq a "weird and unforseen" situation.

Its both normal and foreseeable.

My mom teaches and there is even a school policy against cellphone use in class. But sure enough someone's phone rings in class about every other day and that kid goes sprinting out the door saying "its an emergency".

In my day, if there was an emergency, the parent would either call or visit the school office and let the administration make the call and take care of things. Now every kid has a cellphone and every call is an emergency-- whether its a tornado in Omaha or relationship drama, or the next big rumor floating around.

Let the administration take care of emergencies-- the dad can call the front office and someone can get the son out of class to take the call. Having 20 cellphones ring while teachers are getting stretched further and further by parents and students that dont care, more testing, more pressure to teach successfully, and less support from administration is totally unacceptable. It's only 8 hours in a 24 hour day that you have to hang up and not text message.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Your "apparently" is an assumption. It could very well be that the principle (or whoever) said something like, "yeah, we'll work something out." then never did. The only "apparently" is that apparently, the family thought it would be ok.

No, "apparently" refers to the fact that this was not a lone violation of the policy; that the student had reportedly (not 'apparently') accumulated previous cell phone-related infractions, and that the school had informed him that if it happened again, he would be suspended.

Regarding the speculation that an assistant principal said something like "Yeah, we'll work something out.", that isn't an agreement, by any stretch of the imagination. And it certainly isn't realistic to think that a school is going to give an attention-seeking 16-year-old a free pass to sit in class with his cellphone on receiving calls from whoever happened to dial him.

I'm curious to know how far you think this policy of governmental-we accommodation for families of servicemen should extend. Only to violations of cellphone use policy at school? Should children of servicemen also receive more leniency with tardies? Extra excused absences? More time to submit assignments? More classtime to complete exams? Extra bathroom breaks? Should the policy accommodations extend into university studies as well? (But only for public schools, not private ones.)

Should this policy of accommodation extend to other governmental-we entities? Should the children of servicemen receive leniency in terms of observing speed limits? Because, you know, they could be speeding home to receive a call from a parent stationed overseas.

How about college admissions? Should they get extra points on an admissions score because of deployment of a parent overseas?

How about sales tax? Should families of servicemen receive a card to allow them to pay lower sales tax rates at restaurants and retail establishments?

How much flexibility are we talking here?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm fine with that too, except that it necessitates allowing the student to have a cell phone in class in the first place.

In the "not-so-old-days", if a parent needed to reach a student, that student would be pulled out of class and go to the office.

Edit: Flaco beat me to it.

I'm like I said, I see both sides. I just think their still has to be more to the story.

I empathize with the Dad who is out of country. I am ex-military, and didn't make a call for a month one time in 1989 which had my parents/girlfriend a little worried. Now, I am a civilian and have kids in class with cell phones, and can't get hold of them -- but understand school policy so I leave voice mail.

I don't understand the suspension though, unless it is an habitual situation, and you know the situation of the dad. Like I said above, the easiest way would have been to call the school and get him out of class - and maybe they had told them that, and he had repeatedly ignored it, and that is the cause of the suspension. I don't know enough to really take a side yet. I just don't have enough information, IMO.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

Why?

Sorry, my experience says otherwise.

If you can't be consistent with adminstering rules in the classroom, then things will snowball on you quickly.

And in no way is having a father in Iraq a "weird and unforseen" situation.

Its both normal and foreseeable.

so, in your experience, the best application of a rule is to have no exceptions, ever?
and, as dalmations pointed out, not all service in Iraq is the same. And, the way I figure, neither are all teenagers.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

so, in your experience, the best application of a rule is to have no exceptions, ever?
and, as dalmations pointed out, not all service in Iraq is the same. And, the way I figure, neither are all teenagers.

No, not to all rules.

This particular rule, yes.

If you allow cell phones in the classroom, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a teacher to monitor their use.

Furthermore, one student can not be allowed to have a cell phone "just-in-case", while others are expected to follow the policy.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

No, "apparently" refers to the fact that this was not a lone violation of the policy;

sorry then, that's not how you wrote it, which was something like: the father told the school . . . which is the assumption I was talking about

Regarding the speculation that an assistant principal said something like "Yeah, we'll work something out.", that isn't an agreement, by any stretch of the imagination. And it certainly isn't realistic to think that a school is going to give an attention-seeking 16-year-old a free pass to sit in class with his cellphone on receiving calls from whoever happened to dial him.

you sure like to attribute a lot of selfish and misguided intentions to only one side of this situation

I'm curious to know how far you think this policy of governmental-we accommodation ?

I hope it's been taken into consideration in this case. How far would you like to extend your prohibition on consideration of military service?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

No, not to all rules.

This particular rule, yes.

If you allow cell phones in the classroom, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a teacher to monitor their use.

Furthermore, one student can not be allowed to have a cell phone "just-in-case", while others are expected to follow the policy.

I can understand that. I don't agree, but can understand it. And in this case, if the administrator gave the impression that it was ok?

[TripleDipping]

I don't mean to this to ruffle feathers... but I do think some people have a sense of entitlement just because they or their family members serve in the military.

[ShaggyDirk]

Poll suggestion: cell phones in class or d-m.com at work?

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

sorry then, that's not how you wrote it, which was something like: the father told the school . . . which is the assumption I was talking about

Just to clarify, that wasn't an assumption either. The Mother said in an interview:

Yet Pat Hill said before her husband left for Iraq, he made a special arrangement with the assistant principal.

"He had spoken with Mr. Fletcher," said Pat Hill. "HE (original emphasis) thought there was an agreement understood that if he called either Joshua or Brandon at school, that everything was fine.

IMO, that's ridiculous for the mother to assert that as an excuse, IF the father even truly believed that constituted an agreement. (It doesn't.) Question to you: Do you really think that any kind of system can function that way with that kind of unilaterally-imposed, institutionalized exception? Exceptional circumstances should be exceptional--rare, infrequent, dealt with on a case-by-case basis; not routine, regular, frequent and predictable.

you sure like to attribute a lot of selfish and misguided intentions to only one side of this situation

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. But I have observed enough classroom-type settings, as well as sixteen-year-olds, indulgent and entitled parents, cellphones, cellphone-related disruptions, and policy-enforcement type situations to form an opinion based on a recognized pattern.

If, on the other hand, you've read any suggestion that the teacher or the assistant principal had it in for the student, or that they were making a politically oriented anti-war statement with their actions, then I'd certainly consider that side of the story as well.

I hope it's been taken into consideration in this case. How far would you like to extend your prohibition on consideration of military service?

I notice that you didn't answer how far you would extend such a policy, but I think I have said previously that in the current situation, I don't think is should be considered AT ALL.
In fact, I think in a way it trivializes the real sacrifices and hardships that military families endure for that Mother to use her husband's deployment as an excuse for her 16-year-old to be exempted from a necessary disciplinary policy. Military service is certainly something to respect, but that doesn't mean that there won't be individuals who will try to abuse the situation.

I think one could make far more emotionally compelling arguments about how to treat veterans and their families that would make just as little sense, such as letting the votes of veterans and their families count more (10x, 100x, 1000x?) in elections, or extending Congressional voting ower to disabled veterans on matters relating to war. Or letting the Cindy Sheehans of the world decide troup deployment levels.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Just to clarify, that wasn't an assumption either. The Mother said in an interview:



IMO, that's ridiculous for the mother to assert that as an excuse, IF the father even truly believed that constituted an agreement. (It doesn't.) Question to you: Do you really think that any kind of system can function that way with that kind of unilaterally-imposed, institutionalized exception? Exceptional circumstances should be exceptional--rare, infrequent, dealt with on a case-by-case basis; not routine, regular, frequent and predictable.

I never suggested anything unilaterally-imposed or institutionalized and the quote doesn't suggest that the mother expected something unilateral or institutionalized. Where did you come up with that? Everything that I've said, and everything that's in the quote, suggests that this was and should be something exeptional--rare, infrequent, dealt with on a case-by-case basis, etc. Unless, of course, all military fathers are talking with Mr. Fletcher and coming away with the impression that their child would not be disciplined for receiving such a phone call. And your translation of that quote into "Just the father telling an assistant principal what he wanted," is at the very least an assumption.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.. . If, on the other hand, you've read any suggestion that the teacher or the assistant principal had it in for the student, or that they were making a politically oriented anti-war statement with their actions, then I'd certainly consider that side of the story as well.

I haven't read anywhere the selfish motives that you attribute to this kid and his family, either.

I notice that you didn't answer how far you would extend such a policy, but I think I have said previously that in the current situation,

so if we both agree that we are just talking about this situation, why bother with the weird list of extensions?

... for that Mother to use her husband's deployment as an excuse

that's what I'm talking about

I think one could make far more emotionally compelling arguments about how to treat veterans and their families that would make just as little sense, such as letting the votes of veterans and their families count more (10x, 100x, 1000x?) ...

I don't, and I don't think anyone is talking about those things

[Burn this City]

Originally Posted by mary

... I never expected everyone else to revolve around me and my problems.

And nowhere does it say that this is the only possible time they're schedules allowed them to communicate. Only that the kid was down and needed someone to talk to.

I do believe that line forms to the left.

So harsh yet so true...

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I never suggested anything unilaterally-imposed or institutionalized and the quote doesn't suggest that the mother expected something unilateral or institutionalized. Where did you come up with that? Everything that I've said, and everything that's in the quote, suggests that this was and should be something exeptional--rare, infrequent, dealt with on a case-by-case basis, etc. Unless, of course, all military fathers are talking with Mr. Fletcher and coming away with the impression that their child would not be disciplined for receiving such a phone call. And your translation of that quote into "Just the father telling an assistant principal what he wanted," is at the very least an assumption.

I don't get your interpretation at all. First, based on the Mother's account, the father told the principal that if he called either of his sons at school, they should be allowed to accept the call. She provides no detail whatsoever about what the assistant principal replied or agreed to, and in fact, in referring to her husband says, "HE (intonational emphasis) thought that there was an agreement, an understanding..." which itself implicitly acknowledges the one-sidedness (unilateral-ness) of the "understanding".

Second, how would you characterize the situation where a parent tells an administrator that they expect for their children to be exempted from a policy without specifiyng a time and date, and a valid reason for the specific one-time exemption? To me, if a parent asserts that he can call anytime without being specific, that's pretty much akin to saying "We won't be observing this policy, okay?" That is NOT an exception for a one-time exceptional situation, but a parentally-asserted, generalized exemption from the policy. What's worse, if the child understand that he can keep his phone on at any and all times just in case his father calls, it opens the situation up to the kid receiving non-urgent, non-parental calls on random occasions, resulting in numerous classroom disruptions. I infer (not just 'assume') that this is what had happened, and what caused the school to tell the student that if he received more calls that he would be subject to disciplinary action.

Third, it seems that there may be an assumption that an assistant principal actually agreed to something. I agree that it seems plausible that an assistant principal may have said something along the lines of "We'll work something out." , possibly in an attempt to be reassuring to a parent who was being deployed to a combat zone. I don't agree, however, that that constitutes an agreement with a reasonable expectation that the father could call either of his sons anytime without going through established procedures for contacting students in an emergency. A kid needing a pep talk isn't an emergency. And the school's actions suggest that they had not agreed to any such policy exemption either, and further that they may have been lenient toward the student in the past because of previous violations of the policy. Frankly, I don't know how much more one could reasonably expect from the administrators.

so if we both agree that we are just talking about this situation, why bother with the weird list of extensions?

I think it's a natural extension of the highly novel concept you raised yesterday of the 'pan-governmental-we'. If you only want to apply it to this once circumstance, then my question would be "Why bother?" If you think it is applicable beyond this circumstance, I'd like to get an idea of your notion of scope. If you want to discard that idea altogether, I would agree.

[LonghornDub]

So, how bout those Mavs?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

... "the father told "..."a parent asserts ... "a parentally-asserted, generalized exemption"

You infer this kind of stuff from "He had spoken with Mr. Fletcher"? Or have you read something else? Call it an inference if you want, but you are assuming a lot in order to make that inference.

I don't agree, however, that that constitutes an agreement with a reasonable expectation that the father could call either of his sons anytime without going through established procedures for contacting students in an emergency.

That's your interpretation, based on the same absolute lack of knowledge that I've got. Are you not open to the possibility that the principle may have said more? Are you not open to the possibility that "reassuring the father" might have been honestly interpreted as reassuring him that it would be ok?

A kid needing a pep talk isn't an emergency.

you don't know that without knowing the kid and the situation. Besides, the school says it'd be ok if it were an emergency. What's at issue is whether they should be open to non-emergency exceptions. The parents say they'd come away from some conversation with the notion that there was. I think there should be. I would take someone's military status into consideration.

I think it's a natural extension of the highly novel concept you raised yesterday of the 'pan-governmental-we'. If you only want to apply it to this once circumstance, then my question would be "Why bother?" If you think it is applicable beyond this circumstance, I'd like to get an idea of your notion of scope. If you want to discard that idea altogether, I would agree.

ok. I think in just about all cases you listed, things like this are taken into consideration. I think just about every police officer is (and all should be) open to take circumstance into consideration when writing any speeding ticket, I think they pay taxes differently than we do (I may be wrong. If they don't then they should pay differently than we do). And I think individual shop owners do (and should) work out a military discount as they see fit - on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure that those in the military get special consideration when it comes to a lot of things university related (ahem, GI Bill?). At the least, many universities include an interview process where not only is there military service taken into consideration, but a whole lotta personality and personal history variables that wouldn't be applicable, I think, in the cell-phone case are taken into consideration as well.

Now, do you think that all these cases and situations should adhere to your blanket "no consideration of military status" policy? If I imagined an equally inane list, would you apply it? If I said, "what about the case where someone leaves their job for 12 -24 months at a time" would you apply it?

[Jack.Kerr]

Here are some additional facts.

To the extent that this is accurately reported, I don't feel any sympathy at all toward the student, nor do I think the accommodation is reasonable or appropriate.

I do feel sympathy toward the teachers, whose authority and ability to manage a classroom gets undermined by irresponsible, spineless, nutless administrators more concerned with keeping self-entitled parents off their own backs than with the undertaking of effecitvely educating children.

Student broke phone policy
Posted on: Thursday, April 17, 2008, 2:13 AM
By Jon Schroeder
Killeen Daily Herald

Sophomore Brandon Hill, suspended for taking a call from Iraq, is back in classes at Copperas Cove High School.

On April 3, he received a two-day, out-of school suspension after he received a call on his cell phone from his father, a soldier serving in Iraq. But Brandon had already received a three-day, in-school suspension earlier that day after replying to a text message sent by a friend, his mother said.

The same day, Brandon's mother, Patricia Hill, sent an instant message to her husband, Master Sgt. Morris Hill of the Operational Test Command, stationed in Iraq, saying that his son needed to talk to him. Morris Hill called his son, ultimately resulting in Brandon's second suspension of the day when he took the call in class.

When Patricia Hill came to the school to pick up her son, she asked to see Assistant Principal Richard Fletcher, whom she said had met with her husband before his deployment and had agreed to allow the soldier's phone calls. When Fletcher wasn't available, she called the school district superintendent's office, then the military children's advocate on Fort Hood, who directed her to CCHS Principal Dr. Carol Saxenian.

Then, after hearing that Saxenian would get back to her, the same day of the offense, Patricia Hill called KXXV Channel 25, which reported the second suspension April 4. Information about the first suspension Brandon received was not included either in media reports or in a press release put out Monday by the Copperas Cove Independent School District. Citing confidentiality laws, school administrators said they cannot talk about specific incidents.

Saxenian met with Patricia Hill on Friday, after the suspensions were served, and sent e-mail messages to Brandon's and his brother's teachers directing their teachers to allow future calls. No formal complaint was filed.

In a Fox News broadcast, Patricia Hill thanked Saxenian for resolving the matter, but in an interview on Tuesday, she said she's still hoping for the incident to be expunged from Brandon's student records, which school administrators assured her will happen at the beginning of the next school year.

Patricia Hill said she is now trying to get similar policies changed. She's already tried to contact political figures to spread her message.

"If anyone in this country can give me a guarantee that my husband will be here tomorrow, later on today or a week from now, I will make sure my husband never contacts our children at school again."

[dalmations202]

I knew there had to be more to the story.

ISS for phone already. He was a problem before the call, and the suspension was because of compounding issues, not the call from Iraq. The call was just the straw that broke the camels back.

It makes more sense now to me.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I knew there had to be more to the story.

ISS for phone already. He was a problem before the call, and the suspension was because of compounding issues, not the call from Iraq. The call was just the straw that broke the camels back.

It makes more sense now to me.

If this call had been ok'd by the asst principle beforehand, then it should not have been a straw at all.

(and to Kerr - it's starting to sound more like these aren't self-entitled parents at all, but parents whose entitlement was given beforehand by that asst. principle. And, we should cut them some slack because of the active deployment)

If the teacher had been more flexible in the first place, his back wouldn't have been rigid enough to break.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If this call had been ok'd by the asst principle beforehand, then it should not have been a straw at all.

Maybe not, but it sounds more like a communications issue to me. I don't know that the asst principle let the teachers know this, nor do I know that the asst principle gave the OK.

Looks to me like better communication between admin and teachers might have been needed in this case, as well as better communication between parents and school.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Maybe not, but it sounds more like a communications issue to me. I don't know that the asst principle let the teachers know this, nor do I know that the asst principle gave the OK.

Looks to me like better communication between admin and teachers might have been needed in this case, as well as better communication between parents and school.

most definitely. I disagree with how the teacher was using his authority, but he shouldn't get screwed out of that authority because of poor management and blunt force pr by the mom. The only scenario I can imagine where it should go down like it did is one in which the asst principle told the teacher the calls were ok, the teacher ok'd it, then acted as if he didn't. That seems to stretch my imagination about as far as it can go.